ArticleStem cell reviews and reports2014
Perception and knowledge about stem cell and tissue engineering research: a survey amongst researchers and medical practitioners in perinatology.
Article in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStem cell and tissue engineering (SC&TE) research remain controversial. Polemics are potential hurdles for raising public funds for research and clinical implementation. In view of future applications of SC&TE in perinatal conditions, we aimed to measure the background knowledge, perceptions or beliefs on SC&TE research among clinicians and academic researchers with perinatal applications on the department's research agenda. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe polled three professional categories: general obstetrician gynecologists, perinatologists and basic or translational researchers in development and regeneration. The survey included questions on demographics, work environment, educational background, general knowledge, expectations, opinions and ethical reflections of the respondent about SC&TE.
resultsThe response rate was 39 %. Respondents were mainly female (54 %) and under 40 years (63 %). The general background knowledge about SC&TE is low. Respondents confirm that remaining controversies still arise from the confusion that stem cell research coincides with embryo manipulation. Clinicians assume that stem cell research has reached the level of clinical implementation, and accept the risks associated of purposely harvesting fetal amniotic cells. Researchers in contrast are more cautious about both implementation and risks.
conclusionProfessionals in the field of perinatology may benefit of a better background knowledge and information on current SC & TE research. Though clinicians may be less aware of the current state of knowledge, they are open to clinical implementation, whereas dedicated researchers remain cautious. In view of the clinical introduction of SC & TE, purposed designed informative action should be taken and safety studies executed, hence avoid sustaining needless polemics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.